Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

December 20091 Standardization for Oil Water Separator (OWS) and Oil Content Monitor (OCM) Systems In-Service Engineering Agent Perspective December 2009.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "December 20091 Standardization for Oil Water Separator (OWS) and Oil Content Monitor (OCM) Systems In-Service Engineering Agent Perspective December 2009."— Presentation transcript:

1 December Standardization for Oil Water Separator (OWS) and Oil Content Monitor (OCM) Systems In-Service Engineering Agent Perspective December 2009 Presented to: ASTM F25 Environmental Seminar Presented by: Ray A. Morales US NAVY (NSWCCD)

2 December In-Service Engineering Agent Responsibilities Provide technical support to the fleet for the in-service Oil Pollution Abatement (OPA) system including OWS, OCM, and transfer system. –Test and Evaluation –Equipment Modifications –Technical Assistance –System Certification and Training Provide support for the acquisition programs –Design and Specification reviews Standardization for Oil Water Separator (OWS) and Oil Content Monitor (OCM) Systems

3 December Applicable Standards & Regulations for Navy OWS and OCM systems Navy Ships are considered public vessels –Department of Defense (DOD R1) –Office of Chief of Naval Operations Instruction (OPNAVINST C) –American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) Naval Vessel Rules (NVR) –USCG (Title 46 CFR Part Pollution Prevention Equipment) –International Maritime Organization (IMO) ( MEPC.107(49) ) ASTM Standard –ASTM F2283 Standard Specification for Shipboard Oil Pollution Abatement System Provides general design requirements Refers to MEPC.107(49) for OWS and OCM requirements. Standardization for Oil Water Separator (OWS) and Oil Content Monitor (OCM) Systems

4 December Challenges for OWS and OCM systems Performance issues Reliability Maintenance costs Obsolescence issues Capital costs of unique systems Lack of Standards to ensure performance, reliability, and maintainability Standardization for Oil Water Separator (OWS) and Oil Content Monitor (OCM) Systems

5 December Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs Objective To conduct laboratory testing of selected IMO MEPC 107(49) certified COTS OCMs to evaluate their performance under various operating conditions and in the presence of contaminants to determine if these units would be suitable for shipboard use in Navy vessels based on direct comparison with the in-service OCM unit. Case Study – Testing of Commercial off-the-Shelf (COTS) MEPC. 107(49) Certified Oil Content Monitors (OCMs)

6 6 Test Set-up Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs WATER PUMP OIL INJECTION SYRINGE PUMP DISPERSER WATER PURIFICATION THERMO SCANNER DATA ACQUISITION DRAIN FUNNEL Sediment Pre-filter 5 Micron Filter 0.5 Micron Filter TAP WATER FEED FLOW METER PRESSURE GAUGE / TRANSDUCER SAMPLE VALVE AIR PUMP PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE P P CONTAMINANT INJECTION SYRINGE PUMP WATER FEED TANK PRESSURE GAUGE CONTAMINANT TANK RECIRCULATION PUMP WATER HEATER December 2009

7 7 Screen shot of data acquisition software Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs December 2009

8 8 Testing Performed Pre-test Checks: –General checks to determine installation/ interface requirements and to ensure that OCM and testing equipment are operational Calibration Test: – To verify OCM calibration at 0 PPM, 15 PPM and maximum oil concentration that the OCM can measure Oil Droplet Size Distribution Test: – To determine deviations of the OCM calibration due to variations in oil droplet size distribution Flow/Pressure Range Test – To determine deviations of the OCM calibration within the design Flow rate and Pressure Ratings and to determine if the OCM is fail-safe beyond the design flow/pressure range. Temperature Range Test –To determine deviations of the OCM calibration within the design temperature Range. Different Oil Types Test –To determine deviations of the OCM calibration in the presence of different types of oils (i.e., the oil mix# components separately; DFM, 9250, 2190, JP-5 and Synthetic oil) Response Time Test –To determine time required by the OCM to alarm once high oil content is present. Contaminant / Interferences Tests (color, air, solids, emulsions, salinity) – Decision Making Test –To incrementally change each given parameter to determine at which point: (1) The OCM measurements are affected and (2) The OCM decisions are affected (i.e., allows overboard discharge or recycle to the oily waste holding tank) Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs December 2009

9 9 Conclusions drawn from this testing The COTS OCMs tested failed to detect free oil, failed to accurately measure oil under the conditions expected in the effluent of a failing OWS treatment system and required highly mechanically dispersed oil for accurate measurements. The COTS units tested produced critical failures (would allow overboard discharge of > 15PPM oil-in water), with and without interferences/contaminants, when tested under the conditions expected from a failing OWS treatment system. COTS units tested did not accurately measured different types of oils (affected calibration) Then COTS units tested required significant routine maintenance to keep operating properly. The sampling cell of the COTS units were cleaned between tests to ensure a zero baseline and prevent drift in the readings. Response time results were not consistent with requirement (e.g., < 5 secs) COTS units tested did not provide for Fail-safe design: –Continued operation even with no flow allowing by-passing the OCM while the data recorded shows acceptable effluent. This could allow continued operation of OWS even with unacceptable overboard discharge while zero (0) oil PPM is recorded. –Design does ensure diverter valve default position to recycle during all possible failures modes COTS units tested were designed and calibrated to meet MEPC.107(49) Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs December 2009

10 10 Test Results/ Findings Oil Droplet Size Distribution Test (Dispersers settings) Testing of Commercial off-the-Shelf (COTS) Oil Content Monitors (OCMs) December 2009

11 11 Test Results/ Findings Oil Droplet Size Distribution Test (Dispersers settings) Oil Droplets Micrographs: 15 PPM oil injection at 8,000 RPM Dispersers Speed (Standard Conditions) Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs 46µ m 28µ m 25µ m 6µm 28µ m 6µm 4µm 3µm 32µ m 29µ m 6µm 35µ m 28µ m 8µm 3µm 2µm 14µ m 5µm 13µ m 12µ m 13µ m 5µm 14µ m 9µm 6µm 32µ m 5µm 3µm December 2009

12 12 Test Results/ Findings Oil Droplet Size Distribution Test Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs December 2009

13 13 Test Results/ Findings Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs Different Types of Oils Test bilge mixdiesel fuel marine 2190 lube oil9250 lube oilJP5synthetic Different Types of Oils Oil Concentration, PPMv ET-35NOCM 8k RPMOCM 12K RPM OCM 8k RPMOCM 20k RPMOCM 8k RPM OCM 22K RPM December 2009

14 14 Test Results/ Findings Response time Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs Target Response Time, 5 secs Required by MEPC.107(49) NOTE : For this test oil was injected at 40 PPM oil at the corresponding optimum dispersers speed for each OCM: The calculated time for the oil to travel from the injection point to the OCM was subtracted from the time measurements The blue columns represent the first time that the OCM detected any oil The total height of the columns represents the total time for the OCM to alarm December 2009

15 15 Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs List of Contaminants TestTypeComponentsDescriptionComposition 1.8aColorDyeFormulabs STD Blue Liquid, Lot # bAirAir bubblesInjected with syringe pump for low concentrations and low pressure air with pressure regulator and rotameter 1.8cSolidsIron Oxide (Fe 3 O 4 )Particle size distribution: 90% below 10 microns and 10% up to 100 microns 50/50 by weight mixture SAE fine test dustISO Fine (0-80 microns) 1.8dEmulsions Allied P-98 Mil-D AFFF Simple Green Emulsifier/detergent mixture Mixture of equal volumes, prepared using bench-top shaker 1.8eSalt WaterInstant OceanRefer to Appendix A for ingredients Up to 6% of salt in water December 2009 Test Results/ Findings Contaminant/Interference/Salinity Test – Summary

16 16 Test Results/ Findings Contaminant/Interference/Salinity Test – Summary Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs The Navy in-service OCM was not affected by the presence of interferences/ contaminants at low concentrations. It produces unnecessary recycle at high concentrations of these interferences/contaminants and fails safe. The COTS unit tested produced critical failures with and without interferences/contaminants when tested under the conditions expected from a failing treatment system. The COTS unit tested was not significantly affected by the presence of interferences/contaminants when the sample was conditioned at very high dispersers speed. December 2009

17 17 Potential Areas of Standardization for OWS and OCM Systems OWS and OCM – Revise ASTM F-2283 – Different Type of Oil test – Reliability and maintainability OCM – Free oil and droplet size distribution tests – Fail-safe design Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs December 2009

18 18 (BACK UP SLIDES) Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs END December 2009

19 19 Test Approach Test Set-up is shown in next figure Baseline - Navy OCM calibration standard conditions: – Oil type: Mixture by vol 50% diesel fuel, 25% 2190 lube oil, 25% 9250 lube oil (used for years as standard in all Navy testing) – Sample conditioning: In-line disperser set at 8,000 rpm to produce approximately 20% oil droplets above 20 um diameter (expected in the effluent of a failing parallel plates OWS) – Performance results from the in-service OCM unit OCMs tested within a range of various operating conditions, oil types and contaminants/ interferences Oil concentration was determined by mass balance of oil injected into the water stream Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs December 2009

20 20 Test Results/ Findings Calibration Test Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs OCM Unit 0 PPM Oil Injection (1) 15 PPM Oil Injection (1) 15 PPM Oil Injection (at higher dispersers speed) 12,000 RPM20,000 RPM23,000 RPM (2) Navy OCM (ET-35N) OCM OCM OCM Notes: (1) Standard dispersers speed (8k RPM). (2) maximum dispersers speed (3) OEM of COTS units indicated that their units were calibrated to meet the MEPC. 107(49) and that recalibration will invalidate this certification December 2009

21 21 Test Results/ Findings Oil Droplet Size Distribution Test: Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs Acceptable Region Critical Failure - >15 PPM Overboard Discharge December 2009

22 22 Conclusions Summary The COTS OCMs tested failed to detect free oil, failed to accurately measure oil under the conditions expected in the effluent of a failing parallel plate OWS, and required highly mechanically dispersed oil for accurate measurements – These OCMs were not designed to condition the sample – The accuracy of these units will depend on the sample conditioning of the secondary treatment effluent – These units may produce unacceptable overboard discharge if the failure of the treatment systems produces large oil droplets (e.g., cracked membrane, etc.) The measurements of the OCMs tested were not significantly affected by variations in pressure or temperatures The measurements of all the units tested, including the In-service OCM, are dependent on the type of oil present. Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs December 2009

23 23 Conclusions Summary (Cont.) The response times of all the MEPC. 107(49) Certified OCMs tested exceeded the maximum of 5 seconds required for this certification (e.g., 11 to 43 seconds) The ET-35N was not affected by the presence of interferences/ contaminants at low concentrations. It produces unnecessary recycle at high concentrations of these interferences/contaminants and fails safe. The COTS unit tested produces critical failures with and without interferences/contaminants when tested under the conditions expected from a failing parallel plate OWS The COTS units tested were not significantly affected by the presence of interferences/contaminants when the sample was conditioned at very high disperser speeds. OEM of COTS units indicated that their units were calibrated to meet the MEPC.107(49) and that recalibration will invalidate this certification. Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs December 2009

24 24 Conclusions Summary (Cont.) The sampling cell of the COTS units were cleaned between tests to ensure a zero baseline. These units may require self-cleaning capabilities for proper operation. COTS units continued operation even with no flow allowing by-passing the OCM while the data recorded shows acceptable effluent. COTS units do not provide signal output to energize the diverter valve when the OCM is operational and readings below 15 ppm as required for a fail-safe installation. Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs December 2009

25 25 Recommendations Summary Performance and reliability shipboard demonstration should be conducted prior to considering these units for shipboard installation. Integration requirements should be developed to ensure that the fail- safe intent is met if these units are considered by the Navy for shipboard use: –Diverter valve Fail-safe requirements Diverter valve position to overboard only when received signal from OCM. Default position of the diverter valve shall be to the OWHT when –Normal de-energized position –No signal input from the OCM –Actuator failure –Electrical power supply failure –OCM signal output Fail-safe requirements: OCM shall have consecutives acceptable readings for at least 1 minute prior to send signal to the diverter valve to: –Verify that the effluent is acceptable prior to being sent overboard. –To avoid constant cycling of the diverter valve that can result in unacceptable overboard discharge and valve failure. –OCM signal shall be immediately interrupted if any reading is unacceptable The units tested use some variation of light scattering technology. Other available technologies such as UV fluorescence should be evaluated. Testing of MEPC. 107(49) Certified COTS OCMs December 2009


Download ppt "December 20091 Standardization for Oil Water Separator (OWS) and Oil Content Monitor (OCM) Systems In-Service Engineering Agent Perspective December 2009."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google